On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, the House is scheduled consider H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, under a rule. The rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Additionally, the rule makes in order ten amendments, each debatable for ten minutes each, and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill was introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 18, 2011, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill would allow individuals with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also issues concealed firearm permits or licenses, or in any other state that does not generally prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. H.R. 822 would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm. The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state. The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety.

I'm guessing, hoping this will pass the house and go to the senate. I'm hoping Harry will give it a up or down vote. Harry, for all his faults, is pro-gun, but we'll see. I don't know how it would fare in the senate.

If passed, this would be a real game changer for CA and other may-issue states. Here in CA, our CCW permits are state permits issued by the various counties and cities. Most jurisdictions in the state just don't issue permits. This would mean that out of state ccw permit holders could legally carry concealed in San Francisco, but locals could not.

Amendment No. 8Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that states law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

I opposed this on 10th Amendment grounds. Don’t want the feds interfering in state issues at all......this will require them to have access to all the gun purchase/registration/CCW applications in all the states. None of their business.

5
posted on 11/16/2011 8:21:34 AM PST
by klb99
(I now understand why the South seceeded)

The DOJ does b/g checks in CA for purchases - for each purchase long gun and handgun. Don’t know if feds have access to registration and permit apps - which are almost impossible to get in populous counties. They keep trying to get registration required for long guns. CA is lost.

11
posted on 11/16/2011 8:48:44 AM PST
by klb99
(I now understand why the South seceeded)

Haven’t read the bill, just the article here, but It’s not a stretch to understand that once the feds “audit” the requirements for and number of CCW permits, they will demand to see the registration records for said weapons.

12
posted on 11/16/2011 8:52:25 AM PST
by klb99
(I now understand why the South seceeded)

I oppose this, but not on 10th Amendment grounds. The 2nd Amendment is unique among the Bill of Rights in that there are no limitations on the right to keep and bear arms. It 'shall not be infringed.' The others, for example the 1st Amendment, all have limitations on the rights, and therefore limitations on the delegated authority of the federal govenment to secure those rights. But under the 2nd Amendment, the federal government is charged to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed, which means the 10th Amendment does not apply since there is a delegated power.

What I disagree with is the idea that it takes a further act of Congress to enable this right. That equally implies that another act of Congress could take it away. The Supreme Court needs to read the Constitution, including the 'full faith and credit' clause and make concealed carry licenses valid in any jurisdiction- including on federal property.

The only restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is that it is applied to 'the people'. That is the body of citizens who are bound by that contract among ourselves called the Constitution. The direct and unambiguous way to interpret that is anyone who can vote is part of 'the People.' Since the states get to decide who can vote within their sovereign territory, it is reasonable to say that the states can determine who is qualified to carry a weapon (leaving out minors, those who are not competent mentally, criminals, etc.) Once the state determines someone is a valid voter, then they are part of 'the People' and their right to keep and bear arms *shall* not be infringed - by anyone. Your voter's registration card is your concealed carry permit.

While it makes for good Conservative “sound bites”, this bill is a complete waste of time in the House. It will pass with a large (30 - 40 Dem) bi-partisan vote, no doubt. Unfortunately, Reid (pro gun that he and the NRA says he is) will never let come up in the Senate. Obama cannot let this bill hit the floor and he will instruct Reid to follow his orders. Both know that if it did appear on the Senate floor it would pass and Obama cannot let that happen.

I agree with your entire position. But I also believe that in practice, we don’t have 2A rights. We have privileges that are doled out at the gov’t whim. Infringement seems to be the rule of the land. Even after Heller, go try to buy a gun in DC.

Gun control is like trying to solve drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.

I’m an NRA member so I’ve read their position on this, but I re-read again just now. This phrase is what I think is a potential problem:
“only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out” the GCA’s provisions”....

It’s the camel’s nose under a tent and I don’t want the feds to further butt into anything. I don’t trust them an inch - there are not enough 2nd Amendment supporters. The recent SCOTUS decisions in our favor were 5/4 and that should scare everybody. Shoulda been 9/0. They overreach in every aspect of our lives right now. Beware the Trojan horse...they are not doing our side any favors.

24
posted on 11/16/2011 9:57:34 AM PST
by klb99
(I now understand why the South seceeded)

How about if we get our congresscritters to make a 'sense of Congress' declaration that the Supreme Court should rule in line with what the Constitution acually says?

Nonetheless, the fact is that Congress has usurped many powers not granted to them, and the Supreme Court has gone along with it. It's piling on another bad precedent to try to undo prior bad precedents - treating the symptoms rather than the disease - but it may be necessary.

As the saying goes: The US Constitution describes a wonderful form of government - far superior to the one we live under.

I opposed this on 10th Amendment grounds. Dont want the feds interfering in state issues at all......this will require them to have access to all the gun purchase/registration/CCW applications in all the states. None of their business.

Concur. I'd have preferred to see states whose CCW licenses are ignored in other states deny recognition of the drivers' licenses and vehicle registrations of those nonreciprocating states in response, as is now being considered in a couple of the westgern states.

And don't kid yourself. The feds have copies of the CCW/CCH license holders in everry state that issues them. Every one.

It will die in the Senate if it isn’t voted down by a majority of BOTH parties.
Neither the Republicans or the Democrats want you to have the right to defend yourself s that makes you not dependent on government.
If you are not dependent on government you do not need politicians ,you don’t need politicians they lose power & that is what really motivates a politician not love of service to their fellow man.

Attempted poison pill for the bill the woman is a totalitarian & autocratic oligarch. She is also a supporter of the Occupy movement ,so that means that if she had her way there would reeducation camps & mass graves for those who did not agree with her.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.